"Technically speaking" these two vehicles are very different from one another and do not compare easily. Go drive an H1 and let us know if you want it for a daily driver. Or you can enlist and drive them for FREE!
UZJ100 Or H1
- Thread starter Nav
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
The end of story is this is a 100 thread. People need to leave that up to the moderators and stop worrying about it so much where it is and give helpful information. Just think of it as if you were in there shoes. And to add to it definitly get the 100. Where i can see where you can't decide the 100 is just an amazingly bad ass vehicle and can do a lot. Go to slee's site and you can see all it can do!
Hey GA:
I am going to say this one more time. I was not trying to moderate, I was not trying to be a smart ass, I was not trying to belittle the H1. What I was trying to do is send the guy in a direction to get the answers he needs. He sure is not going to find them here. That has been proven in not only this thread but others in the past. And I am trying to be in his shoes, be helpful and not waste his time or others in the future by posting threads, in tech, that inevitably go no where.
And GA, I take offense to the insinuation that I am too worried about the organization of this thread versus helping someone. Take a look at my posts friend and do some homework before making a statement like that.
Nav: I will, personally, get you any comparative specs you need. PM me and we can discuss off line.
JL
I am going to say this one more time. I was not trying to moderate, I was not trying to be a smart ass, I was not trying to belittle the H1. What I was trying to do is send the guy in a direction to get the answers he needs. He sure is not going to find them here. That has been proven in not only this thread but others in the past. And I am trying to be in his shoes, be helpful and not waste his time or others in the future by posting threads, in tech, that inevitably go no where.
And GA, I take offense to the insinuation that I am too worried about the organization of this thread versus helping someone. Take a look at my posts friend and do some homework before making a statement like that.
Nav: I will, personally, get you any comparative specs you need. PM me and we can discuss off line.
JL
- Thread starter
- #24
Juke, you don't need to apologize to me. I do appreciated your directions on where to get information and to everyone else thank you for taking time and providing me your comments and information. Now let us get back to our TLC and enjoy them.
Last edited:
I hope this is "Tech" enough :
The H1 was designed in 1983 with the best manufacturing technology and quality control available to American auto manufacturing at the time by AM General, a company that produced 0 (zero) light vehicles for civilian service until 1991. The UZJ100 was designed in 1997 using the best technology and quality control available to Toyota (the worlds #4 auto maker by volume and a technology leader with a long history in the light 4wd vehicle market).
H1 - 5 Cross beams on the frame - Cool and loud rust-free aluminium body
UZJ100 - 9 cross beams - standard quiet steel body
I used to love driving the Humvee offroad in the service and think that if they ever surplus them (They won't. They didn't meet 1983 eviromental or safety standards and had a big sticker that said so ) they would be a lot of fun. I hated to drive them on the road. I have never been in a civilian model and heard they are more comfortable (I would have been impossible to make them worse).
Military vehicles are not disposable but are designed with the realization that most likely they will sit neglected for years (10+) in a motor yard with very few miles put on them. When they are activated high maintnence requirements are expected and planned for. If you look at the surplus vehicles sold (CUCV ect.. ) most are old, abused but invariably low miles. Typical service is to start them every three months - check fluids, tires ect, pull an oil sample to send to the lab every 6 months and only change the oil if the lab says to.
The H1 was designed in 1983 with the best manufacturing technology and quality control available to American auto manufacturing at the time by AM General, a company that produced 0 (zero) light vehicles for civilian service until 1991. The UZJ100 was designed in 1997 using the best technology and quality control available to Toyota (the worlds #4 auto maker by volume and a technology leader with a long history in the light 4wd vehicle market).
H1 - 5 Cross beams on the frame - Cool and loud rust-free aluminium body
UZJ100 - 9 cross beams - standard quiet steel body
I used to love driving the Humvee offroad in the service and think that if they ever surplus them (They won't. They didn't meet 1983 eviromental or safety standards and had a big sticker that said so ) they would be a lot of fun. I hated to drive them on the road. I have never been in a civilian model and heard they are more comfortable (I would have been impossible to make them worse).
Military vehicles are not disposable but are designed with the realization that most likely they will sit neglected for years (10+) in a motor yard with very few miles put on them. When they are activated high maintnence requirements are expected and planned for. If you look at the surplus vehicles sold (CUCV ect.. ) most are old, abused but invariably low miles. Typical service is to start them every three months - check fluids, tires ect, pull an oil sample to send to the lab every 6 months and only change the oil if the lab says to.
Last edited:
OK. Here we are:
Features:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=features
Performance:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=performance
Measurements:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=measurements
Toyota "Advantages"
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3pryQ2L8Szjly56JBBptGr8LQyY9ypwdHNf6G0c7QJm2hyyvWnT!-890900795?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=advantage
On paper the H2 has advantages as well. In my opinion, a rear locker standard is a good example. However, the 98-99 100's had them. Interesting to see stock ground clearances.
Angles:
LC approach: 31-36, departure: 24-27, ramp break over: 155-151
HV Approach angle: 42.8°
Departure angle: 36.5° (with spare tire carrier)
39.0° (without carrier)
42.1° (extended ride height with carrier)
43.4° (extended ride height without carrier)
Ramp break-over angle: 25.8° (coil springs)
26.6° (air springs)
The HV's of the mid to late 90's are superior in performace to the H2 i.e. shorter turning radius, 16.5 inch ground clearance.
Features:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=features
Performance:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=performance
Measurements:
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3c8JyckjWhPTCRyh0JslNQHzR5pfsWypmGSjdn20Kq1NwyhgkBp!1784619764?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=measurements
Toyota "Advantages"
http://toyota.edmunds.com/products/nvc/toyota/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=B3pryQ2L8Szjly56JBBptGr8LQyY9ypwdHNf6G0c7QJm2hyyvWnT!-890900795?basestyleid=100413086&styleid=100382833&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=advantage
On paper the H2 has advantages as well. In my opinion, a rear locker standard is a good example. However, the 98-99 100's had them. Interesting to see stock ground clearances.
Angles:
LC approach: 31-36, departure: 24-27, ramp break over: 155-151
HV Approach angle: 42.8°
Departure angle: 36.5° (with spare tire carrier)
39.0° (without carrier)
42.1° (extended ride height with carrier)
43.4° (extended ride height without carrier)
Ramp break-over angle: 25.8° (coil springs)
26.6° (air springs)
The HV's of the mid to late 90's are superior in performace to the H2 i.e. shorter turning radius, 16.5 inch ground clearance.
See this thread was good. I mean the guy posting it thanked everyone for there responses so that has to show that it is a good thread. End of story.
That comparison was for an H2SUT not the H1. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
And as for an H2 having a rear locker? Even rear locked, the H2 cannot keep up with a TRAC-controlled 100 (in most situations). Too much weight and too little traction despite the 35-inch tires. All these guys do out here is struggle. H1's too!
And as for an H2 having a rear locker? Even rear locked, the H2 cannot keep up with a TRAC-controlled 100 (in most situations). Too much weight and too little traction despite the 35-inch tires. All these guys do out here is struggle. H1's too!
Sorry, I was comparing 35-inch tire 100 to H2 of H1. Stock, the H2 or H1 will go where a 100 can't. Bumper angles, tire size, clearance, etc. Spend a grand o the 100 and it'll bury the Hummers.
Shot:
The H2 is MORE like the LC than the H1. That is why I used it. Stock to stock I do not see any big difference. But again, and I will say it until I am blue in the face, Reliability IS the differentiator when it comes to Toyota. If that is not your key indicator in terms of value, then a comparison is really moot.
The H2 is MORE like the LC than the H1. That is why I used it. Stock to stock I do not see any big difference. But again, and I will say it until I am blue in the face, Reliability IS the differentiator when it comes to Toyota. If that is not your key indicator in terms of value, then a comparison is really moot.
Jukelemon said:
Thread compares the H1 though?
Stock to stock, there is a BIG difference cmpared to the H2. Front and rear angles by themselves will stop the 100 in it's tracks off-road compared to the H2. Breakover's close only because the H2 has another 10-inches to it's wheelbase. Body design and 31 vs 35-in tires sets the 100 back off-road.
Modified and it's no comparo. The H2's I've been with pretty much suck thoug even though my 100's quite modified I sure wish I had those H2 angles.
No, not similar. Only suspensions are similar. Tahoe rear end, K2500 (modified) front end, though the front ends break tie rods like there's no tomorrow.
They just opened up the parts bin to build the H2. Engine, transmission, etc. are all standard GM fare. As much as possible is off the shelf GM stuff for profit!
The new H3? based upon the Trailblazer is almost identical to the Envoy/Trailblazer platform.
Have you seen the spy shots of the H3 parked off a trail in the bushes. NOT TREADING LIGHTLY LOL.
The new H3? based upon the Trailblazer is almost identical to the Envoy/Trailblazer platform.
Have you seen the spy shots of the H3 parked off a trail in the bushes. NOT TREADING LIGHTLY LOL.
I spent a weekend wheeling with an H2. Its size on the trail is a real liability (I would say this is true of the H1 also). Made my whale of an 80 look like a Mini Cooper. And the whole thing is just bling and mirrors and lights. Good for an afternoon out on the logging roads, not so much for real trails.
TJK
TJK
Last edited:
calamaridog said:
H3 is based on the new Colorado pickup.